yeah, this is a great and nuanced view on the topic that shows me you've read ZERO of the relevant legal briefs or opinions. If you think it's irrelevant, there is something about suffering in silence.
I'm looking forward to the tidal wave of cis men claiming to be trans so they can dominate women's basketball and sleep in women's shelters. Surely, they will relish the discrimination they'll suddenly face from family and peers. This is akin to the idea that blacks and women have an overall easier time achieving professional success because of affirmative action and reverse racism. If only I could be a black trans female -- I'd probably be CEO by now.
Look if you don't understand the consequences of legislation that says gender and sex are things that can be determined by any person on a whim then that's your problem. I mean, I know you were handed your opinion by special interest groups and you are just repeating what you were told to be outraged by but if you did some thinking on your own, you'd start to see the flaws....probably. If a man can become a woman on a whim and a woman can become a man on a whim then there'd be no legal distinction between them anymore.
i loled hard about this. What's stopping you from changing gender identity right now? And why does it matter? "Unforeseen consequences"? You've got a s**t grasp of the legal issues, have been proven clueless in psychology so I really don't get why you feel the need to blabbermouth if you think this is an irrelevant topic.
You might not think it'll happen, but it will. I actually had a friend growing up that ended up homeless, if he was a woman, he could have gone to a MUCH better shelter than where he ended up. He actually claimed to be a drug addict so that he could enter a program and go to a different shelter than the one he originally ended up in. He eventually got back on his feet, but I guarantee you if all he had to do was claim he was a woman, he'd have been in that woman's shelter the very first night. They have better funding and have better conditions and to a person on the struggle, that's all that matters. Also, if you say that gender is on a whim, they wouldn't have to dress in drag or anything else, all they'd have to do is act normally and just claim to be a woman at the moment. You create all manner of problems when you enact stupid legislation. Think it through, there's no way of doing this without entirely breaking down the barriers between women and men entirely.
Oh it's become relevant because pawns like yourself have taken up the cause LGBT groups invented after they won their legitimate civil rights cause. It SHOULD be irrelevant, but people aren't terribly intelligent unfortunately. I do hope that some day you grow up and start to think for yourself.
allowing people the freedom to live as they choose should be a small government stance. you should have to show harm to restrict freedom it's odd the same people claiming this exposes children and women to harm oppose mandatory background checks and stopping the CDC from studying gun violence. One has no evidence of common occurrence and the other has massive data showing harm. Why?
It's not, it's a big government stance. It's the government trying to step in and "solve" a non-issue and then there is a big government response from the other side with a different "solution" to the non-issue. The real problem is that people on "both sides" always look to big government solutions even for non-issues like this.
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if anybody fires Basso for that post or statement alone, which can happen to transgender people in most states. Ironically, this is solely because of the black part. But if the Department of Justice gets its way in upcoming court rulings...
Curious to think why you think discrediting animus under rational basis analysis precludes the elevation of sexual minorities to intermediate scrutiny, seeing as the latter would be much stronger than the former at entrenching the defense of foundational civil rights--including the ones you keep on harping as being relevant to you.
also, last note on this, the legislative branch continues to have its impact felt by having passed the Civil Rights Act and the United States Education Amendments of 1972. If Congress has problems with those sections of the law now, they can always amend them.
Not really true because the statement isn't true. Now if they fired someone because they were black or because they were a lesbian, then sure. Someone that was detached from reality to the point where they don't realize who they are anymore would be covered under the ADA. While they couldn't necessarily be fired due to having a handicap, if they were deemed incapable of doing their job or it was deemed unsafe for them to continue due to their condition, they could be fired. Of course this is pretty far off topic at this point, none of this has to do with outlawing one sex facilities or amending the definition of male and female as to have no real meaning anymore and that's what this thread is about.
First of all, you're spewing bulls**t again by conflating pathological dissociation with transgenderism. Didn't I have to carve in your face on that before? Secondly, on the topic: NC law: Not Just about Bathrooms If you actually read a legal opinion for once in your life you would know what the ACTUAL debate is about--the elevation of sexual minorities to quasi-suspect classes de facto, and perhaps soon, de jure. And the inherent backlash that comes with it as inconsistent laws and beliefs will have to face the music.
